Why does the linux community fight?

[free-as-in-free-beer]

I don't know you, and you don't know me. We do, however have something in common, we love linux. I will tell you now: quit fighting like children about "kde vs GNOME" or "Ubuntu vs Debian"
What the linux community is needing is ONE distro, ONE desktop environment. Don't get me wrong, choice is a good thing, but together we will succeed, divided we will fail. Do we really want to be hypocrites and be like Mac vs PC? Take for example the Beryl vs Compiz fight. The were both great products, but put together, magic happened. Lets stop being "Ubuntu users" and start being "Linux Users" and in this way, we will succeed. Please give your input on this matter.

until then,

free-as-in-free-beer

EDIT; nothing is wrong with kde, i just think we should join kde and gnome

[forestpiskie]

moved to recurring discussions

[Therion]

I only smack around KDE users and I only do it because I love them. It's Tough Love... I think they know that.

[philcamlin]

whats wrong with kde ?

my grandma uses it. it gives a feel of windows with out the viruses

[u'b'u'n't'u]

I think this guy has a point, we shouldnt fight like babies.:D

[Bachstelze]

@title

Because all communities do. It's called "human nature".

[philcamlin]

got a point there:popcorn:

[Greg]

No way. I don't want stock Ubuntu with GNOME. I want xmonad on Arch or a source based distro. I want control, I want to tinker, I want a tiling wm. Most people don't. That's fine; let them use what they want and let me use what I want.

[monsterstack]

It is choice that has kept Linux strong. If Linux was limited to one distribution, one company, one option, it would be much easier to destroy. How many times have people tried to get rid of Linux? SCO are still trying, and failing, Microsoft have tried a bunch of times, too. It is like cutting the head off a Hydra. You cannot destroy such a beast. Eschew monopoly and monoculture in all of its forms. Choice is a good thing. Seriously. The in-fighting just shows the passion of the community as a whole, and as such, I don't see it as being a problem. People disagree, that's expected; it has not led to the downfall of Linux and it never will.

[free-as-in-free-beer]

Linux will never be popular if it is so spread out, PERIOD.

[philcamlin]

vista lost popularity because it had like 8 different versions while ubuntu has 4

[Greg]

Linux will never be popular if it is so spread out, PERIOD.

So? Why do we need to be popular, as long as it works?

[paul_be]

It will in time. The M$ model is backwards, and will eventually burn out for them, plus I would bet that the Open Source model will take over anyway (linux or other)

[monsterstack]

Linux will never be popular if it is so spread out, PERIOD.

Nonsense. It already is popular because it is so versatile. The desktop market remains the domain of Windows because Windows is what comes on the computer when people buy one. No amount of huffing and puffing about Linux's inadequacies (it does have them) will change that.

[free-as-in-free-beer]

So? Why do we need to be popular, as long as it works?

If you really believed in linux, you would want it to become important, so others would feel the same freedom as you.:)

[Therion]

Produce the better product and popularity will follow.

[Greg]

If you really believed in linux, you would want it to become important, so others would feel the same freedom as you.:)

I believe in freedom. That means a choice. Everyone has the same choice that I do. I let people know about Linux. I'm not particularly quiet. And unless the situation of someone's OS choice is somehow affecting me, I wont push for it. The ability to choose for yourself is freedom. A standard Linux with a powerhungry attitude is not.

[cybergalvez]

because there is no single version of linux, if there were it wouldn't be linux anymore, then apple's OSX is BSD. If you want something to compete with Apple and M$, linux will never ever able to do that, because the average users wants it preinstalled on their computer, and they want to go to the store, and buy software, and have all their hardware supported. Apple took BSD and made OSX, apple users have someplace to buy software and they get around hardware by being conrole feaks. What you want/ need is corprate branding. Ubuntu/Conical is doing a great job, and they could pull it off, but I don't think they see themselves directly competing with Apple or M$. I could be wrong. We linux converts like choice, we're not afriad of picking between kde or gnome, we each have our favorites and love to "customize" My mom (the average user) whould go nuts becuase it would never work for her. Apple really is the model of how you take an opensource operating system and comertialize it, you take choices away and you make it work all the time. When thats done with Linux, the end product won't be Linux, only the underlying OS will be, but your choices will have to be limited. Why do you think Adobe won't support linux? because its to difficult? hell now, all they have to do is pick either QT or GTK as a gui and build it. They don't becuase there is no place to sell it, and there are to many ways to install software on linux, to many "flavors" to support. With Apple and M$ its easy for them they know what comes out of the box. Sorry we all use linux for a reason, freedome, and with freedome comes lots of choices and lots of responsibility, even if tomorrow a corporate supported linix os came out I don't think many of us would switch to it, we'd still use what we've installed.

So to get to your question, why do we fight? Its because we enjoy it! its all about making the perfect computer for me, its all about what I like, what I want, not what M$ or Apple thinks I want. So we fight amongst ourselves to show that what we've put together is supperior to what the next guy has. In truth its half tech stuff and half chest brumming

[Tibuda]

There's nothing wrong with diversity. The different distros aims different users.

Why do you think Adobe won't support linux?
Let me tell you something: Adobe supports Linux, and have joined Linux Foundation last year. They just don't port their suite to Linux native because it is expensive, and most users that would buy it already use wine or another method to run it.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I strongly disagree with the idea that there should only be one Linux distribution. No one distro could possibly satisfy every type of user out there. It's just not possible. Instead, "the tyranny of the majority" would determine the direction of this hypothetical single distribution, limiting the choices of those who have non-standard tastes.

People fight because it's in their nature to confuse "right for me" with "Right for everyone," even though that is often not the case. Just as it would be wrong for me to insist others dump hot sauce on their food just because it's the way I prefer it, it would be wrong for me to insist that those who choose a different desktop from myself are wrong for making that choice.

Choice is good, and I see no reason why we would want to take that away.

[TheBuzzSaw]

Hmmm. I certainly support fewer distributions, but if we smashed them all into one, we'd end up with Windows ME. Trying to please everyone is how Microsoft ruined its OS. It has severe performance/stability issues.

KDE and GNOME serve very distinct purposes. If anything, it is healthy competition, but I don't even see it as that.

[monsterstack]

I would support a few standardisation attempts. A single, default package management system would remove the need for mindless porting and packaging and let people really get down and innovate some cool stuff, for instance. The choice is not going away, though. The GPL naturally lends itself to that. You will always have some developer who's going to say, "Well sod it, I'm going to do something my way, bwahahaha." Having a dominant Linux distro isn't really all that important, I don't think, but I don't feel it would be necessarily a bad thing. Even Windows users have plenty of choice. Whenever I see threads about compiz and desktop environments, I often see people pointing out that Compiz-esque effects exist on Windows, and that you can run Blackbox and KDE on Windows too. The choice is there for those who want it.

[starcannon]

I don't know you, and you don't know me. We do, however have something in common, we love linux. I will tell you now: quit fighting like children about "kde vs GNOME" or "Ubuntu vs Debian"
What the linux community is needing is ONE distro, ONE desktop environment. Don't get me wrong, choice is a good thing, but together we will succeed, divided we will fail. Do we really want to be hypocrites and be like Mac vs PC? Take for example the Beryl vs Compiz fight. The were both great products, but put together, magic happened. Lets stop being "Ubuntu users" and start being "Linux Users" and in this way, we will succeed. Please give your input on this matter.

until then,

free-as-in-free-beer

EDIT; nothing is wrong with kde, i just think we should join kde and gnome

Three Operating Systems for the Elven-kings under the sky,
OSX for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Linux for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Patents lie.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the EULA bind them
In the Land of Redmond where the Patents lie.

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/1745/onering.png

GNU/Linux and all of its wonderful flavors/distributions, is about choice. Many parts are worked on in teams, and many parts are not. One could always begin a consolidated linux distribution, one may even find a great deal of volunteers to help get it going, but another one would always have the choice as to whether or not to use it. No One Ring here, and I like it that way.

As for the bickering, ribbing, teasing, slapping, biting, punching, sword play; well, I just look at it like sibling rivalry. I love my younger brothers, but there was a time when I also loved to make them say uncle.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I don't know you, and you don't know me. We do, however have something in common, we love linux. I will tell you now: quit fighting like children about "kde vs GNOME" or "Ubuntu vs Debian"
What the linux community is needing is ONE distro, ONE desktop environment. Don't get me wrong, choice is a good thing, but together we will succeed, divided we will fail. Do we really want to be hypocrites and be like Mac vs PC? Take for example the Beryl vs Compiz fight. The were both great products, but put together, magic happened. Lets stop being "Ubuntu users" and start being "Linux Users" and in this way, we will succeed. Please give your input on this matter.

So we force everybody to use the same interface, the same DE, the same package manager, the same distro, limit choice and freedom, just so we can stop the in fighting?
You got to be kidding me.
Look if you like having no freedom go use windows or OSX bud

[doas777]

So? Why do we need to be popular, as long as it works?

because I can;t play galactic civilizations 2 on linux natively. thats why. oss is great but we need compatible commercial products as well.

[SunnyRabbiera]

because I can;t play galactic civilizations 2 on linux natively. thats why. oss is great but we need compatible commercial products as well.

But really gaming should be a last priority, I mean yes its nice to have something fun but stability is where it all matters.
We dont need the one linux to rule them all, what we have now is better then that with multiple distros...
Choice is important too, the OP sounds like every other windows loving idiot who thinks we should force everyone to use one standard this that and the other thus restricting choice and freedom.

[XubuRoxMySox]

I would like to see some distros that are aiming at the same thing get together, though. There must be a dozen Debian-Xfce distros, Debian-KDE, Debian-Gnome, and even multiple Debian-LXDE distros, all basically aiming for the same goals in the same market. Lightweight, or full-featured, or multimedia/studio, or educational, etc.

But choice is a good thing, always.

What is needed is a clear definition of what the choices are. Like, categories of Linux directed at certain uses:

School/Student distros: Edubuntu, etc

Studio/multimedia distros: Ubuntu Studio, etc.

Lightweight distros for older hardware: U-lite, Crunchbang. MoonOS LCDE-edition, Xubuntu (arguably not lightweight at all though), Puppy, Slax, etc

Build-your-own distros: Arch, Debian, etc

Business Linux, Linux for servers (e-mail, company backups, etc)

Home/Office Linux: Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, etc

That could at least narrow things down a little for people who look over this maze of Linux flavors and go, "Omygosh, I wrestle with much simpler decisions like 'paper or plastic.' How am I supposed to choose from among all these?"

Y'knowhatimean.

-Robin

[doas777]

But really gaming should be a last priority, I mean yes its nice to have something fun but stability is where it all matters.
We dont need the one linux to rule them all, what we have now is better then that with multiple distros...
Choice is important too, the OP sounds like every other windows loving idiot who thinks we should force everyone to use one standard this that and the other thus restricting choice and freedom.

I'm not sure i agree. many a potential linux user has given up over lack of game support.
look at it this way; linux may only maintain 1% of the desktop market, but that global 1% is probably about 15-20% gamer. so roughly a 5th of the audience would love to be able to play comercial games on linux. that sounds to me like a stakeholder group we should be paying attention to.

good points regardless of any disagreement

[Therion]

"... much simpler decisions like 'paper or plastic.'

Uh, yeeeeeahhh... Simpler.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AYESvw7RKj8/SL4SYfbEhvI/AAAAAAAAANI/trNnt4l8Yb4/s320/DeerInHeadlights.jpg
"Sir, I said would plastic be alright?... Sir..."

[blackxored]

I think variety and adaptability is what keep us using linux today. I wouldn't see myself convicted with one distro and one philosophy for all work. We need desktop-oriented distros, we need server-oriented ones, we need workstation-ones. We need long term releases and support, and we need cutting-the-edge releases too. The hard work has been done for years, why smash it?

[Bodsda]

If there were no competition then there would be no drive to improve the software. I believe this is why Firefox has just gotten boring. But as chrome & chromium start jumping on the scene it will force a browser revolution.

And fighting is human nature and we enjoy a healthy debate. As long as it doesn't get personal I see no problem with it.

Regards,

Bodsda

[SunnyRabbiera]

I'm not sure i agree. many a potential linux user has given up over lack of game support.
look at it this way; linux may only maintain 1% of the desktop market, but that global 1% is probably about 15-20% gamer. so roughly a 5th of the audience would love to be able to play comercial games on linux. that sounds to me like a stakeholder group we should be paying attention to.

good points regardless of any disagreement

The problem with gaming is that its practically always geard to windows, even apple who has a larger desktop market share then linux has few games in comparison.
But really linux is where apple was 4 years ago and it will take time to get into the mainstream.

[k2t0f12d]

Linux will never be popular if it is so spread out, PERIOD.Wrong. Heaps of uses have been discovered for the Linux kernel, including but not limited to desktop computer operating systems. Its power is its flexibility, adaptability, and promiscuity. This is why Linus does not allow his copy of the source tree to be directed to specialized uses. Linux is designed to be as general as possible.

If you really believed in linux, you would want it to become important, so others would feel the same freedom as you.:)Having a feeling doesn't mean anything. Using the freedom to build and innovate does. That is why we oppose proprietary software. I don't have to believe in Linux, its already proved its existence and value. Disagreement over policy in the community is the inevitable and necessary consequence of reaching to meet everyone's needs. We can have a distribution that you think is okay just as much as we need all the others. Make more distributions..not less.

[rexy1]

I belive, just like some earlier posters, that the many different ways people develop linux is what drives it forward as a whole. If you'd conjoin distros there would eventually be another road junction where people will go different ways, because they think different. But, boy it's hard to find a distro that you feel comfortable with. (For the newbie linux user atleast. I settled with Ubuntu after some tinkering!)

[Sublime Porte]

Although I don't agree with the idea of distro-consolidation, there certainly is some merit in standardisation, especially as someone else mentioned for package management. All package managers are pretty much redundant, there's no real benefit to using x or y package management system, and the existence of multiple package formats just makes it confusing for new users, and even annoying for veteran users alike. So on the issue of package management, I agree, strive for a single standard, but that doesn't mean forbidding diversity. Just look at the complete joke that software companies have to deal with if they actually consider porting to Linux. Which Linux?? Which package format?? Shall they dedicate an entire page of their downloads section, just to the various different Linux package formats?

As for the issue of DE's and distros, then I think this will naturally work itself out. It won't need to be a consolidation, but more a specialisation process. Distros like Ubuntu will become more and more synonymous with desktop use, and distros like Redhat with Enterprise use, and others for embedded and so on. Users will see Ubuntu (or another distro, who knows?) for instance as the "desktop face" of Linux, and that's all that matters. This is already happening, many new users know Ubuntu branding before they even know what Linux is, or even GNU/Linux at that. KDE, Gnome, XFCE, LXDE etc. are all healthy I think, as long as they don't become too redundant and fill the same hole twice. Limiting Linux to a single DE would be disastrous and would ruin the scalability and flexibility that Linux is famous for.

[billgoldberg]

I don't know you, and you don't know me. We do, however have something in common, we love linux. I will tell you now: quit fighting like children about "kde vs GNOME" or "Ubuntu vs Debian"
What the linux community is needing is ONE distro, ONE desktop environment. Don't get me wrong, choice is a good thing, but together we will succeed, divided we will fail. Do we really want to be hypocrites and be like Mac vs PC? Take for example the Beryl vs Compiz fight. The were both great products, but put together, magic happened. Lets stop being "Ubuntu users" and start being "Linux Users" and in this way, we will succeed. Please give your input on this matter.

until then,

free-as-in-free-beer

EDIT; nothing is wrong with kde, i just think we should join kde and gnome

Eum .... no.

[Tibuda]

Just look at the complete joke that software companies have to deal with if they actually consider porting to Linux. Which Linux?? Which package format?? Shall they dedicate an entire page of their downloads section, just to the various different Linux package formats?

Companies don't have to deal with this. Have you ever installed VMWare Player? Binary installer just like everybody does for Windows. Commercial companies don't have to use the package manager. Distros have to.

[Bigtime_Scrub]

The O.P is right. It like what was said in Braveheart. "We must unite the clans!"

The different distros and options for the distros have more in comment with each other then they think. What really needs to be done more then bringing KDE and Gnome together is getting all the repositories for different distros together and to get a package manager than can handle dependencies for both RPM and Deb files. A universal package manager and more standardization throughout linux is what is needed to really fight against the Empire.

[stinger30au]

i dont think bringing kde and gnome together is a good thing, they are totally different inferfaces to the user in usability wise

but i would like to see Ubuntu dominate the desktops of the world

the biggest problem i see is the fact that there is so many who have never heard of linux.
we need some kind of advertising to heppen.probably the cheapest and easist is to write a letter to your local news paper to their letters to the editor section and rave on about how great it is

thats a step in the right direction

[rookcifer]

Linux will never be popular if it is so spread out, PERIOD.

And why should that matter to any of us?

[Tibuda]

A universal package manager and more standardization throughout linux is what is needed to really fight against the Empire.

No, what Linux needs is to use the force, Luke.
http://www.alexandgregory.com/images/Ben%20kenobi%20ghost.gif

[Wiebelhaus]

I agree , we should coalesce around one amazing product but still retain our footholds in our hobby OS's.

[Polaris96]

I disagree. LINUX is a home for the iconoclastic malcontents of the software world. Consider the fact that this whole community started out as a sunday diversion for Linus, himself. There is no reasonable way that this environment would've evolved to its present degree if everyone was conforming.

there are at least five ways to execute any command, at least three major package managers, uncounted flavours and colours. THIS IS GOOD. Natural selection needs a population from which to cull. The whole reason the big guys are foundering now is that, after they clobbered the competition, there was no REAL drive to make the best system.

Few people in this community are into maintaining status quo. We push in our own direction. If we have a good idea, people flock to it. If we don't, it might still hang around and be retooled by somebody else with fresh ideas.

FREE AS IN FREEDOM!

[Bigtime_Scrub]

I disagree. LINUX is a home for the iconoclastic malcontents of the software world. Consider the fact that this whole community started out as a sunday diversion for Linus, himself. There is no reasonable way that this environment would've evolved to its present degree if everyone was conforming.

there are at least five ways to execute any command, at least three major package managers, uncounted flavours and colours. THIS IS GOOD. Natural selection needs a population from which to cull. The whole reason the big guys are foundering now is that, after they clobbered the competition, there was no REAL drive to make the best system.

Few people in this community are into maintaining status quo. We push in our own direction. If we have a good idea, people flock to it. If we don't, it might still hang around and be retooled by somebody else with fresh ideas.

FREE AS IN FREEDOM!

And there is nothing wrong with this. A universal default desktop is good for new people and changes nothing for experts. You can still change whatever you don't like and alternative CD's can give you a more customized install. It is like, having Ubuntu and choosing to install all your programs with tarballs and doing your own dependency resolutions. You have a great package manager, but you don't HAVE to use it.

Distros can focus on whatever directions they want. All the time distros waste repackaging programs for their specific distro wont be wasted on rewritting a program that has already been written. This will increase innovation and bring change faster, not slower because you are reallocating resources you already have.

[Sublime Porte]

Companies don't have to deal with this. Have you ever installed VMWare Player?

Ever installed skype?

Skype Linux Choose (http://www.skype.com/intl/en/download/skype/linux/choose/)

The VMWare player installer will not work on all systems, and as far as I'm aware has no way of dealing with dependancies if they're required.

Binary installer just like everybody does for Windows.

You mean self-executable installer, not binary. All packages are binaries as well.

Commercial companies don't have to use the package manager. Distros have to.

Persnally I'd much prefer a software installer that plays nicely with my package management. I don't want orphan software all over my system, that has no centrally trackable way of being accounted for. If I wanted such a shoddy install system, then I'd use Windows wouldn't I?

[Tibuda]

Ever installed skype?

Skype Linux Choose (http://www.skype.com/intl/en/download/skype/linux/choose/)
Yes I use Skype, but it's their choice to use proper packages. They don't have to. They have also a static version that would work in almost any system.

The VMWare player installer will not work on all systems, and as far as I'm aware has no way of dealing with dependancies if they're required.
I don't know. They probably include all the dependencies.

You mean self-executable installer, not binary. All packages are binaries as well.
Yes, that's what I mean.

Persnally I'd much prefer a software installer that plays nicely with my package management. I don't want orphan software all over my system, that has no centrally trackable way of being accounted for. If I wanted such a shoddy install system, then I'd use Windows wouldn't I?
Me too, but my point is that the diversity of package formats is not a barrier to software developers support Linux. Thumbs up for companies that take the time to create proper packages, but they don't have to.

[Sublime Porte]

Either way it's still a joke, when it really has the potential to be the best system out of all OS's..

Every other OS simply has one standard for installing software onto their system.

I'm all for diversity, and choice and having a wide range of different software alternatives to choose from, this is one of the greatest things about FOSS, but not when it's mere redundancy, and not when it leads to such confusion and a poor reflection on the flagship FOSS OS.

Package systems should merge, simple.

[HappyFeet]

Linux will never be popular if it is so spread out, PERIOD.

Why does it have to be popular? So you can feel validated as a user?

[Sublime Porte]

Why does it have to be popular? So you can feel validated as a user?

I think most people want it to be popular, so we can get better support from hardware/software makers, not to feel validated.

[Tibuda]

Every other OS simply has one standard for installing software onto their system.
Not Windows. Self-executable installer is not a standard. Microsoft tried to create a standard with MSI, but it never was used by many software developers.

[k2t0f12d]

I think most people want it to be popular, so we can get better support from hardware/software makers, not to feel validated.I'd be excited to see the popularity of GNU+Linux give developers the incentive to release free software and hardware with specifications included.

[doas777]

Not Windows. Self-executable installer is not a standard. Microsoft tried to create a standard with MSI, but it never was used by many software developers.

thats true, but it's been a long time since simply doubleclicking "setup.exe" didn't cause the install to fire off. compare that with linux. ok, do I need to use apt-get install, or tar -zxfv, or do I need to doubleclick a .deb, or do I need to alien -k -i, or do I need to run an .sh, or do I need to "sudo make && sudo make install"?

[Sublime Porte]

Not Windows. Self-executable installer is not a standard. Microsoft tried to create a standard with MSI, but it never was used by many software developers.

Well that's true to an extent. But you must realise that Windows has a standard set of libraries loaded on every single box, most GNU/Linuces do not. They differ vastly, and that's part of the reason why a centralised package management system is key on most systems for making sure everything gets done right. The only way to guarantee this on a GNU/Linux distribution would be to statically compile everything, which would just mean huge downloads for anything.

MSI is just a package management database system, and there of course are others, more often used, but they all can achieve the same thing on any Windows system (within reason) independant of one another. If I download a Windows software packaged with NSIS, I can be guaranteed it will install onto pretty much any Windows system (give or take a few releases). The same is not true of GNU/Linux package management, it's a much more delicate process, partly because of the various competing _redundant_ systems.